Ayn Rand

[Commodore]

There is a visceral reaction to Rand that you don't find with any other thinker/philosopher, a strong urge to shame and belittle her and those who sympathize with her thinking. Rand is an idiot, he philosophy is simplistic, people who agree with her are assholes, stuff like that.

It provides some interesting psychological insight, a real lesson in group think, that the response to an extreme individualist philosophy is to evoke a kind of intellectual peer pressure, an academic mob. "How could you like her? All the critics hate her. All educated people agree that Rand is an idiot."

In academic circles, the trend is to ignore her entirely, and quash any mention of her with a collective sneer. Pretty much how this thread has played out.

[Lady Blackfish]

While I can understand the aversion to what is perceived as a knee-jerk blanket rejection, I don't think that invalidates the actual criteria people use to reject her. Sure, it may be fashionable to hate her in some cirlces, but no less so than it is to extol her in others. Underneath there's still the ideas, and I think it's valid to find her ideas very problematic.

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Commodore' post='1660570' date='Jan 23 2009, 21.04']There is a visceral reaction to Rand that you don't find with any other thinker/philosopher, a strong urge to shame and belittle her and those who sympathize with her thinking. Rand is an idiot, he philosophy is simplistic, people who agree with her are assholes, stuff like that.

It provides some interesting psychological insight, a real lesson in group think, that the response to an extreme individualist philosophy is to evoke a kind of intellectual peer pressure, an academic mob. "How could you like her? All the critics hate her. All educated people agree that Rand is an idiot."

In academic circles, the trend is to ignore her entirely, and quash any mention of her with a collective sneer. Pretty much how this thread has played out.[/quote]
You act as if no one in this thread has given a logical reason for disliking Rand or her philosophy. A group can come to a consensus without falling victim to "group think". A group can agree without being sheep. This is a good example of one of the things a hate most about objectivism, a built in response to detractors; these sheep hate us because they fear our individuality.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Commodore' post='1660570' date='Jan 23 2009, 21.04']There is a visceral reaction to Rand that you don't find with any other thinker/philosopher, a strong urge to shame and belittle her and those who sympathize with her thinking. Rand is an idiot, he philosophy is simplistic, people who agree with her are assholes, stuff like that.

It provides some interesting psychological insight, a real lesson in group think, that the response to an extreme individualist philosophy is to evoke a kind of intellectual peer pressure, an academic mob. "How could you like her? All the critics hate her. All educated people agree that Rand is an idiot."

In academic circles, the trend is to ignore her entirely, and quash any mention of her with a collective sneer. Pretty much how this thread has played out.[/quote]

You do not think that it might have something to do with the way Rand belittles what a lot of people hold dear?

As example, in the Virtue of Selfishness, Rand casually proclaims that people who help strangers in dangerous situations must have tremendously low self esteem. Firemen, policemen, soldiers, peace keepers, humanitarian aid workers, rescue teams, they do not do it because they wish to make a difference. They are not brave, and they are not heroes. They are, according to Rand, just trying to work out an inferiority complex, proven by their willingness to put themselves in harm's way for the sake of someone they do not know.

Ayn Rand never really went in for polite disagreement. The people who looked at the world differently then her were deluded, evil, or both. How do you expect someone to react when they are told they are evil, and their heroes are cowards fleeing their own sense of worthlessness by desperately trying to throw their lives away?

[Commodore]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1660640' date='Jan 24 2009, 00.59']As example, in the Virtue of Selfishness, Rand casually proclaims that people who help strangers in dangerous situations must have tremendously low self esteem. Firemen, policemen, soldiers, peace keepers, humanitarian aid workers, rescue teams, they do not do it because they wish to make a difference. They are not brave, and they are not heroes. They are, according to Rand, just trying to work out an inferiority complex, proven by their willingness to put themselves in harm's way for the sake of someone they do not know.[/quote]

If you value the life of a complete stranger (who might be a total degenerate) over your own, then it could be argued that you do have a low sense of self worth. That isn't belittling, it's an exercise in logic. Of course, there could be selfish reasons for joining such a profession (thrill, compensation, etc.).

I agree with Lady Blackfish that the criteria people use to reject her should be evalauted on their own merits. But the collective visceral response to her (reasoned or otherwise) is not found anywhere else, as if her ideas are threatening in some way.

[Norseman]

[quote name='Commodore' post='1660777' date='Jan 24 2009, 14.59']If you value the life of a complete stranger (who might be a total degenerate) over your own, then it could be argued that you do have a low sense of self worth. That isn't belittling, it's an exercise in logic. Of course, there could be selfish reasons for joining such a profession (thrill, compensation, etc.).

I agree with Lady Blackfish that the criteria people use to reject her should be evalauted on their own merits. But the collective visceral response to her (reasoned or otherwise) is not found anywhere else, as if her ideas are threatening in some way.[/quote]

Actually they are found elsewhere, they are found among quite a few people who belittle and argue against creationism for instance. Am I now to think that the scientific community are afraid of creationists? For that matter try [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism"]Scientific Racism[/url] if you argue in favour of that theory or its ilk you're likely to receive a very passionate and nasty response, are they insecure about something? Here's another one, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA"]NAMBLA[/url], try acting as an apologist for that lot.

My point is this: The fact that the common reaction to your view is sputtering disbelief, followed by condemnation of varying degrees of lucidity, doesn't mean that the person you're arguing against feels threatened. It only means that your views are in their view so loathesome and/or insane that it's hard to find a good argument against them. In much the same way as it is hard to find a good argument against someone who claims that 2+2=5. Eventually you might do it, and there are lots of thoughtful websites such as [url="http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/"]Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature[/url] that give logical, rational arguments against her ideas. For most people Ayn Rand is just so obscure that they don't pay attention, and don't really bother to formulate any good arguments.

And no, I'm not comparing objectivism to racism or pedophilliacs, those are merely examples of groups that draw a lot of ire. Though I do find that a lot of objectivists strike me as very similar to creationists. Only real difference in a lot of cases is that they believe in Atlas Shrugged rather than the literal reading of the bible.

[FedererFan]

I honestly have not spent a long time analysing the worth of Rand's philosophy, but I do know that she is an appalling writer. Ok, so I've only read [i]Atlas Shrugged[/i], but that is more than enough for me never to go near her novels again. Awful characterisation, boring verbosity, mind-numbing repetition of Rand's ideas and the most unsubtle and unartful didacticism you're ever likely to see. Absolutely rubbish novel.

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Commodore' post='1660777' date='Jan 24 2009, 05.59']If you value the life of a complete stranger (who might be a total degenerate) over your own, then it could be argued that you do have a low sense of self worth. That isn't belittling, it's an exercise in logic. Of course, there could be selfish reasons for joining such a profession (thrill, compensation, etc.).

I agree with Lady Blackfish that the criteria people use to reject her should be evalauted on their own merits. But the collective visceral response to her (reasoned or otherwise) is not found anywhere else, as if her ideas are threatening in some way.[/quote]
Another good example of objectivist duplicity; out of all the arguments laid against your previous post you chose to respond to only the one you thought you had an answer for, and ignored the rest as if they didn't exist.

[Elrostar]

The idea of selfishness vs selflessness as a dichotomy is false and is one of the things about her philosophy that bothers me. For starters, her choice of words is extremely poor. Now I know she means something different by them than what most people do, but to consciously choose a different meaning for a word than what is normally meant, knowing that it will cause confusion, is just foolish.
What makes it all the more unfortunate is that there is in fact already a word which means what she is looking for in her choice of [i]selfishness[/i]. That word is [i]self-interest[/i].

And the idea that actions are either done for oneself or for the benefit of others, but that there is somehow a zero sum game between the two is patently incorrect. I could set up a two-by-two matrix of actions, looking at them as either beneficial to me or detrimental to me, and beneficial to others or detrimental to others. But of course that doesn't really cover all actions, since there are actions which are beneficial to me but do not affect other people at all. So it should properly be a 3x3 matrix. Which I'm not going to draw here, or go into at great length, but simply point out that the idea of 'actions' being a zero sum game in which I cannot win unless someone else loses is patently wrong.

The classic example of an action which benefits me but does not affect others is brushing my teeth. I'm not hurting anyone by doing that, but is that a [i]selfish[/i] thing to do? It's certainly a [i]self-interested[/i] thing to do. This demonstrates the false dichotomy that Rand was trying to set up with her poor choice of words, and why it is fundamentally at odds with reality.

Ok, I'm not going to go into this in more detail, as plenty of others have done so already.

[Commodore]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1661158' date='Jan 24 2009, 16.34']Another good example of objectivist duplicity; out of all the arguments laid against your previous post you chose to respond to only the one you thought you had an answer for, and ignored the rest as if they didn't exist.[/quote]

There is a 100:1 ratio of anti/pro Rand posts, and since I'm about the only one to argue in her favor, responding to all of them would take all of my waking hours.

Try going to an objectivist forum and countering all of their arguments, it would be pointless and exhausting.

[Bellis]

<mod> please keep it impersonal, folks. attack rand who's dead and can't defend herself, not your fellows boarders. thanks. </mod>

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Commodore' post='1660777' date='Jan 24 2009, 05.59']If you value the life of a complete stranger (who might be a total degenerate) over your own, then it could be argued that you do have a low sense of self worth. That isn't belittling, it's an exercise in logic. Of course, there could be selfish reasons for joining such a profession (thrill, compensation, etc.).

I agree with Lady Blackfish that the criteria people use to reject her should be evalauted on their own merits. But the collective visceral response to her (reasoned or otherwise) is not found anywhere else, as if her ideas are threatening in some way.[/quote]

The blade cuts both ways. If Rand can call people evil, attribute their actions to psychological disorders or mental deficiencies and so forth without belittling those she is attacking, people can respond by calling her evil and attribute her beliefs to psychological disorders and deficiencies without belittling her.

The institution of a double standard never proves anything save of the existence of bias. The Posters in this thread are discussing Ayn Rand in the same sort of tones that Ayn Rand discussed Altruism/collectivism. Many of them are actually being far more polite.

Someone proclaiming that the overwhelming majority of the world is evil or deluded is not likely to get respected for such opinions. That isn't rocket science. The fact that the world replies “You are the one who is evil and deluded.” doesn't prove that Rand's arguments have merit. If proves that if you lump in hundreds of millions of people together and insult them most will ignore you, while a few will insult you back.

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Elrostar' post='1661172' date='Jan 24 2009, 14.52']For starters, her choice of words is extremely poor. Now I know she means something different by them than what most people do, but to consciously choose a different meaning for a word than what is normally meant, knowing that it will cause confusion, is just foolish.
What makes it all the more unfortunate is that there is in fact already a word which means what she is looking for in her choice of [i]selfishness[/i]. That word is [i]self-interest[/i].[/quote]
This was almost certainly done on purpose. It is a hallmark of cults to create an exclusive vocabulary, either by creating new words or by attributing new meaning to existing words, to help indoctrinate members.

[quote name='Commodore' post='1661200' date='Jan 24 2009, 15.16']There is a 100:1 ratio of anti/pro Rand posts, and since I'm about the only one to argue in her favor, responding to all of them would take all of my waking hours.

Try going to an objectivist forum and countering all of their arguments, it would be pointless and exhausting.[/quote]
I just find it a little strange that of the [b]four[/b] posts that came after your assertion that we have succumbed to "group think" you chose to answer only the one that did not refute said assertion. I don't think [b]four[/b] posts should be beyond of your capability to handle.

[TheKassi]

To be fair, that is also the hallmark of philosophies and religions and social clubs and most organizations. Ayn Rand wasn't the only individual to establish jargon. Granted, Rand's perversion of the words Selfish and Sacrifice are a bit obtuse to say the least, but calling Objectivism a cult is a bit unfair.

It is really hard to form a Libertarian cult. Libertarians really do not unite in large groups and do things that take hard work and commitment. That is the hallmark of us evil collectivists.

And of course Butters didn't reply to you Lemming. You are not a yeardite, You do not know how to speak Rand. If you like, I can loan you my copy of Faith of the Fallen and we can discus...

[Nous]

[quote name='Peter Irving' post='1658632' date='Jan 22 2009, 18.02']:lol: yes we must lack the ability to be able to apreciate her[/quote]
I don't know about ability, but I do know that you, for the most part, don't know what you're speaking about. I'll pick only claims that I can rebut effectively with a single sentence:

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1652032' date='Jan 16 2009, 21.02'][...]Her father was a land owner who lost everything to the Communists after the revolution, which is why she was so very anti-communist to the point of creating a philosophical ideal that was the antithesis of Communism. [...][/quote]
Her father was a chemist who was born to a poor family, and supported himself through one of the few university programs Jews were allowed to attend.

[quote name='SwiftSnowmane' post='1652211' date='Jan 17 2009, 01.18'][...]
"Howard Roark laughed."

(And then we are treated to an entire scene of the main character standing naked on a cliff and feeling amazing about how amazing he is! :rolleyes: )[...][/quote]
He's feeling amazing for being done with the university and being free to go forward, not about his own qualities.

[quote name='Peter Irving' post='1652441' date='Jan 17 2009, 10.46'][...]Ayn Rand was a hypocryt who spoke out against charity itself but recieved it when she came to the USA, talked about how women should be loyal to their man yet cheated on her husband, and was an attrocitious writer(or at least with atlas shrugged) Also thought she was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle. noticing how goodkind might be influenced yet?[/quote]
She didn't speak out against charity itself. She didn't cheat on her husband; the affair was conducted with his consent and knowledge. I challenge you to find where she said she was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle.

[quote name='Shryke' post='1654192' date='Jan 19 2009, 16.03']Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead unabridged:

CD1: Part 1
CD2: Part 2
CD3: The Speech
CD4: Part 4[/quote]
The longest speech in the Fountainhead is eight pages.

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1655546' date='Jan 20 2009, 15.29']Howard on the other hand completely rejected the idea that he should give his customers what they want. He rejected the idea that he should even explain to the world why his ideas were better then others. He just sat around doing nothing but waiting for the world to recognize his greatness, and reward him for it.

Working hard to accomplish your dreams was presented as intellectually dishonest. Getting people to agree with you, and busting your hump until you gain sufficient recognition for your talents that you could shape the standards of aesthetics was presented compromising yourself.[/quote]
We're talking Howard 'lives-and-breathes-his-work' Roark here?

[Nous]

[quote name='Elrostar' post='1658914' date='Jan 22 2009, 20.49']That other page does have some nice damning criticism of her and Objectivism, though.[/quote]
Yeah. They are mostly bullshit, though. I posted the link to spare time for those interested in it.

[Nous]

[quote name='Elrostar' post='1658081' date='Jan 22 2009, 10.25']I tried to politely say that Objectivism is an awfully popular philosophy among the young, affluent, powerful and healthy. It finds less favor amongst those with chronic illnesses, for instance. She just said "Yeah, I guess" without a trace of irony or sarcasm.[/quote]
A woman after my own heart. The idea that we should judge the truth of an idea by what kind of people believe in it is a fallacy. It speaks well of her clarity of thought to disregard an implication that is not an argument.

[Nous]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1661401' date='Jan 24 2009, 21.28']This was almost certainly done on purpose. It is a hallmark of cults to create an exclusive vocabulary, either by creating new words or by attributing new meaning to existing words, to help indoctrinate members.[/quote]
Of course it was done on purpose. She states her purpose for doing so explicitly in the introduction of the [i]Virtue of Selfishness[/i]. RAFO.

[Nous]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1661613' date='Jan 25 2009, 03.49']Nous is like a superhero.

Superman has x-ray vision.

Wolverine has regeneration

Nous has Objectivity.


Just a question: Is PJ Roarke a Rand fan? He seems like it and I'm just imagining him loving Fountainhead in highschool just because he has the same last name as the protagonist.[/quote]
:lol: I don't think PJ O'Rourke is a Rand fan, but I'm not sure.

[Nous]

I'd recommend that site I linked to earlier, [url="http://aynrandlexicon.com/"]The Ayn Rand Lexicon[/url], for people interested in what she actually said. What she said about it: "People will be able to look up BREAKFAST and see that I did not advocate eating babies for breakfast."